4 ms·

A janitor certainly could clock in then sit around in the custodial storage area doing nothing. They could also clock in and wonder around the building doing n

A janitor certainly could clock in then sit around in the custodial storage area doing nothing. They could also clock in and wonder around the building doing nothing. If the concern is really whether they are doing their job, management can easily verify by just checking whether the job was done.

derefr 6y ago
You presume management has the capability to judge the quality of the work. Janitorial work — like, say, being a sysadmin — doesn't necessarily result in instant visible problems if you just decide to skip work one day. The problems are probabilistic, and often consist of smaller problems that compound over time. In this sort of job, you can frequently "get away with" not doing your job for a few hours, at the expense of working a bit harder the rest of the day; you can sometimes even "get away with" not doing your job for a day or two, at the expense of likely having to do a bit of "fire-fighting" work when you get back, rather than only prophylactic maintenance work. In either case, your absence won't necessarily be noted, if you're not part of a team with a supervisor specifically attuned to the KPIs you're delivering on. In jobs where "when you're doing the job right, nobody notices", the reverse also applies: as long as nobody is noticing anything going wrong, then they assume you're doing your job.
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  If nobody notices any difference then is there a problem? Why can't they work harder on even days and less hard on odd days if they want? In your sysadmin example if someone prevents problems from happening they'd look worse than someone who constantly reacts. This already happens, why make it worse with an automated system?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Some things might not be noticeable, such as disinfecting certain surfaces or performing routine maintenance such as cleaning filters until it’s too late.
    - iudqnolq 6y ago
      Yep. This is why humans invented trust and consequences, though. Most people aren't dicks if you aren't dicks to them, and I'd rather discover the exceptions and fire them than treat everyone like one.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Trust doesn’t scale. And scaling results in much bigger rewards. I’d say it’s more accurate that humans have had to rely on trust due to lack of alternatives, but transparency will always be preferred.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        You don't need to scale supervision on janitors. You can just hire some people and pay them some money. If you can't afford enough supervisors to keep a vague eye on what's going on, live with dirtier buildings or go out of business. In general I think some things scale well and others don't. Why is it that HN recognizes outsourcing your tech to try and scale fails but other jobs aren't as worthy?
    - kergonath 6y ago
      You are not going to check if it has been done by monitoring where the janitor goes.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > You presume management has the capability to judge the quality of the work. I presume there was a job which needed doing, which is why management hired someone to do it. Management may have difficulty evaluating the quality or extent of the work done on any given day, but they should at least be able to evaluate whether it was done at all. My point is location tracking doesn't provide management any assurances that the employee has done their job at all, much less how well they did it. It's a breach of the employee's privacy which doesn't even further management's goals any more than my privacy-respecting scanner solution.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > It's a breach of the employees privacy which doesn't even further management's goals any more than my privacy-respecting scanner solution. One of my businesses is currently involved in a lawsuit by someone claiming they suffered a loss due to injury from stepping on a landscaping rock (about 3in x 2in x 1in) in the parking lot. They apparently took a picture of the rock, which was adjacent to the curb. The lawyer is claiming the business is responsible for ensuring the parking lot is clear of obstacles. The crux of the case is not about whether or not this event even took place or if this person is faking it, they don’t have to prove that without wasting a lot of my insurance company’s money. The important part of the case is whether or not the business took reasonable steps to ensure the parking lot was free of obstruction. For this, the plaintiff’s lawyer has deposed the facilities’ manager, the landscaping company, and any staff working that day. All incredibly costly procedural tactics to try and get a settlement. Which they most likely will get from the insurance company. However, these legal costs might be avoided if I could produce electronic logs proving the facilities manager performed routine inspection duties. This is one example of when breaching an employees’ privacy in the manner in question can further management’s goal (and bottom line).
    - CivBase 6y ago
      I'm no attorney, but were I in charge of representing the plaintiff and you presented logs showing your facilities manager's locations throughout the day of the incident, my first question would be something like "how does this prove he verified the parking lot was clear?" It's the same issue. Knowing where the janitor was is not the same as knowing whether she did her job. Knowing where your facilities manager was is not the same as knowing whether he did his. Like I said, IANAL. I have no idea how well that would hold up in court. Regardless, I'm confident security cameras would be at least just as effective for defending your business in cases like this.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  But then checking where the janitor is, is like checking whether a programmer is typing.
- pasquinelli 6y ago
  i'm a janitor and i hear about it any time i forgot to check paper products in a bathroom. managment are all experienced janitors that can easily tell if work's been done. i mean, a toilet might need to be descaled. the well to tell is to look at the toilet.
- admax88q 6y ago
  > You presume management has the capability to judge the quality of the work. If they don't have that capability then they shouldn't be managing that type of work. That goes for any industry. You're not fit for management if you can't judge the work of those you are managing.
  - apricot 6y ago
    If we start mandating that managers be competent we're going to lose a large proportion of managers.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  The janitor is also, typically, the one who is going to sound the alarm first about things that need to be inspected in the building or further looked at. In a school district where they have custodial staff on the payroll (not contracted) there's also sometime a bit of on-call.

derefr 6y ago

You presume management has the capability to judge the quality of the work. Janitorial work — like, say, being a sysadmin — doesn't necessarily result in instant visible problems if you just decide to skip work one day. The problems are probabilistic, and often consist of smaller problems that compound over time. In this sort of job, you can frequently "get away with" not doing your job for a few hours, at the expense of working a bit harder the rest of the day; you can sometimes even "get away with" not doing your job for a day or two, at the expense of likely having to do a bit of "fire-fighting" work when you get back, rather than only prophylactic maintenance work. In either case, your absence won't necessarily be noted, if you're not part of a team with a supervisor specifically attuned to the KPIs you're delivering on. In jobs where "when you're doing the job right, nobody notices", the reverse also applies: as long as nobody is noticing anything going wrong, then they assume you're doing your job.

iudqnolq 6y ago
If nobody notices any difference then is there a problem? Why can't they work harder on even days and less hard on odd days if they want? In your sysadmin example if someone prevents problems from happening they'd look worse than someone who constantly reacts. This already happens, why make it worse with an automated system?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Some things might not be noticeable, such as disinfecting certain surfaces or performing routine maintenance such as cleaning filters until it’s too late.
  - iudqnolq 6y ago
    Yep. This is why humans invented trust and consequences, though. Most people aren't dicks if you aren't dicks to them, and I'd rather discover the exceptions and fire them than treat everyone like one.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Trust doesn’t scale. And scaling results in much bigger rewards. I’d say it’s more accurate that humans have had to rely on trust due to lack of alternatives, but transparency will always be preferred.
      - iudqnolq 6y ago
        You don't need to scale supervision on janitors. You can just hire some people and pay them some money. If you can't afford enough supervisors to keep a vague eye on what's going on, live with dirtier buildings or go out of business. In general I think some things scale well and others don't. Why is it that HN recognizes outsourcing your tech to try and scale fails but other jobs aren't as worthy?
  - kergonath 6y ago
    You are not going to check if it has been done by monitoring where the janitor goes.
CivBase 6y ago
> You presume management has the capability to judge the quality of the work. I presume there was a job which needed doing, which is why management hired someone to do it. Management may have difficulty evaluating the quality or extent of the work done on any given day, but they should at least be able to evaluate whether it was done at all. My point is location tracking doesn't provide management any assurances that the employee has done their job at all, much less how well they did it. It's a breach of the employee's privacy which doesn't even further management's goals any more than my privacy-respecting scanner solution.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > It's a breach of the employees privacy which doesn't even further management's goals any more than my privacy-respecting scanner solution. One of my businesses is currently involved in a lawsuit by someone claiming they suffered a loss due to injury from stepping on a landscaping rock (about 3in x 2in x 1in) in the parking lot. They apparently took a picture of the rock, which was adjacent to the curb. The lawyer is claiming the business is responsible for ensuring the parking lot is clear of obstacles. The crux of the case is not about whether or not this event even took place or if this person is faking it, they don’t have to prove that without wasting a lot of my insurance company’s money. The important part of the case is whether or not the business took reasonable steps to ensure the parking lot was free of obstruction. For this, the plaintiff’s lawyer has deposed the facilities’ manager, the landscaping company, and any staff working that day. All incredibly costly procedural tactics to try and get a settlement. Which they most likely will get from the insurance company. However, these legal costs might be avoided if I could produce electronic logs proving the facilities manager performed routine inspection duties. This is one example of when breaching an employees’ privacy in the manner in question can further management’s goal (and bottom line).
  - CivBase 6y ago
    I'm no attorney, but were I in charge of representing the plaintiff and you presented logs showing your facilities manager's locations throughout the day of the incident, my first question would be something like "how does this prove he verified the parking lot was clear?" It's the same issue. Knowing where the janitor was is not the same as knowing whether she did her job. Knowing where your facilities manager was is not the same as knowing whether he did his. Like I said, IANAL. I have no idea how well that would hold up in court. Regardless, I'm confident security cameras would be at least just as effective for defending your business in cases like this.
benhurmarcel 6y ago
But then checking where the janitor is, is like checking whether a programmer is typing.
pasquinelli 6y ago
i'm a janitor and i hear about it any time i forgot to check paper products in a bathroom. managment are all experienced janitors that can easily tell if work's been done. i mean, a toilet might need to be descaled. the well to tell is to look at the toilet.
admax88q 6y ago
> You presume management has the capability to judge the quality of the work. If they don't have that capability then they shouldn't be managing that type of work. That goes for any industry. You're not fit for management if you can't judge the work of those you are managing.
- apricot 6y ago
  If we start mandating that managers be competent we're going to lose a large proportion of managers.
908B64B197 6y ago
The janitor is also, typically, the one who is going to sound the alarm first about things that need to be inspected in the building or further looked at. In a school district where they have custodial staff on the payroll (not contracted) there's also sometime a bit of on-call.